• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
silentstriker

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Yeah that's fair play. But unless they produce some pitches which help quicks at FC level, who's going to bowl fast in India? You've had a golden generation just about to retire - this fellas aren't easily replaced. If you produce pitches that are the same, you don't adapt. Same goes for here too.
    Ultimately, I do not see a reason to limit rights to just those which you advocate. That kind of subjective reasoning can be used to move against the very rights you seek to implement. That kind of subjectiveness used for the benefit of others is dangerous. It's the kind of logic that can think rational the choice of forcing female circumcision based on whatever religious/subjective reasoning.
    That's where the freedom of speech example comes in. You already appreciate the value of giving someone the right to do something, even if you do not agree with it. Yet expanded into a system of government you work the opposite way.
    LOL, but you don't get it. My society is also a society but I am not forcing you to do things based on the fact that I think its good/right. Whereas both of our view points we can consider subjective; your subjective assessment of things forces me to do things for no other reason that you perceive that to be what's desirable.

    What I am trying to get you to appreciate is that your viewpoint and that of a religious state - like Iran's - is in essence no different. The religious angle I am talking is not about social freedoms; but the logic in forcing others to do something for a benefit that is subjective.

    That you would pick this over a society which lets you have both social and economic freedoms is what is illogical to me. Being a man of science, I find it hard to believe that you would advocate the former system...the subjective+force one.
    Democracy doesn't protect everyone. That's the problem with it.

    What's more problematic is that in your conception of what is good/right you have to force it down my throat. I give you that choice. It is akin to freedom of speech: the majority may disagree with you on your opinion; but that shouldn't stop you having the right to say it regardless. Subjectiveness isn't the problem in so much as the force.

    You claim that personal/social values are above even democracy rule but that in itself is subjective. It is, to me, a dangerous thing that one could follow your logic; with your intelligence; yet differ in certain subjective areas enough that you could be the leader of your own religious state - imposing those laws, with nothing more than subjective reasoning that what you are doing is right/best.
    That's what I mean when I say your views don't seem logical - or at least consistent. For someone fervently against religions you are basically advocating your own religion over another. A subjective philosophy over another subjective philosophy - whereas the other subjective philosophy does not put forth another subjective assessment of equality and lets you choose what to do because it acknowledges that it is subjective.
    "Same with taxation, as long as the burden doesn't become detrimental to an individuals ability to live his life, I have no problem with it. As of right now, I think we are far from that level. "

    Who decides that? U are deciding this for someone else based on ur perceived values. And what about the person who sees social freedoms & economic freedoms as the same?U are again imposing ur perceived values.

    It's no different to a religious state pronouncing something bad based on a subjective point of view (because, once again, there is no objective right point of view) because that religion's code says so.If you lived in a country where your point of view completely disagreed with the inherent values of the rulers but did so on completely logical and justifiable grounds would you not think that this is a bad system?

    I dont see how you can differentiate this at all. The only way u can is to claim that ur point of view isn't subjective - which I think is basically impossible to do.
    I am not trying to convince you FTR. I remember that you admitted before that redistribution was basically theft. However, whilst you are right that free markets may not be optimal all the time; that in itself doesn't disqualify it from being the best system/alternative anyway. Why I am surprised at your opinion is that no matter what you say two things cannot be changed: you cannot prove that leftist policies are better (it is merely a subjective view of things) and moreover using that premise (even if you accept it as subjective but think it is better anyway) does not take away from the inherent morality you are imposing on others.

    It's one thing to think one system is right; it is another thing to force others to use it. In that sense it is no different than living in a country ruled by a religious doctrine. Do you acknowledge this or disagree?
    I also see the comments section...you begin to dispair for the human race.
    I've seen it, I find it a brilliant summation of his efforts and what is wrong with America and the world.

    I've got to reiterate though; I will never get over how someone as logical as yourself has political views based on little more than faith. Which is ironic considering your religious views.
    Haha after a certain point I have a tendency to call bull**** for what it is, so...
    Have you seen this? Something From Nothing - a conversation w/ Richard Dawkins & Lawrence Krauss - ASU Feb 4, 2012 - YouTube

    I remember getting the "A Universe From Nothing" video from you. How I wish I were a scientist. I study law/social sciences but when you listen to things from these guys you understand that all that crap means nothing in the greater scheme of things.
    SJS got back to you ****? Maybe you'd like to ask for questions/topics etc etc.

    Possibly start a new thread? Possibly stop being a **** also, but I know that last request may be a bit difficult.
    Since you gave me all the advice on degree selection a while back, I've spoken to a few other people and done a U-turn back to a BSc rather than a BE, most likely in Physics though that may change. Just interested to know, what sort of stuff did you study for undergrad and postgrad, where has it taken you?
    Hey mate, was going to post this in the Murali thread, but can't be bothered dealing with some posters on both sides of that thread, so thought I'd ask the resident expert.

    Two questions:
    a) the evidence that everyone always cites about Pollock and McGrath extending 12 degrees, that was taken from the Champions Trophy or whatever it was, in play "testing" basically, wasn't it?
    b) did they ever release all the results from that test? Or have they sat on it (which would be understandable if the results weren't what cricket fans wanted to see)?

    Just think that it seems unfair that basically, after all that testing that went on, only three guys (McGrath, Pollock and Sarwan) seem to have their test results made public.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…

Top